On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 17:42:47 -0400, David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Gennaro Prota <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> writes:
[eliminating commas...] would require some preprocessing magic which we already preferred not to have when deciding the first implementation of BOOST_WORKAROUND(); see, for instance
I don't see that conclusion there, but I have to say that I don't think whitespace is particularly better than commas here.
Yup, let me wear the boost historian hat :-O That post was the end - almost 4 years ago! - of the long "[boost] [Config] Testing instructions for compiler vendors" thread: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/index.php whose last part was mainly between you, Paul Mensonides and me. Among the several syntax choices we went so far to consider things like: BOOST_WORKAROUND(__SUNPRO_CC, (!) <= 0x530) I opposed that one (and other similar) because they required several pp-lib tricks and "primitives", for the only benefit of a nice syntax. Despite some divergence on details, we basically all agreed that something simpler was in order (see your last sentence here): http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/41337.php John also expressed along the same lines: http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2002/12/41355.php and thus we had the BOOST_WORKAROUND() implementation that we all know :) --Gennaro.